shadowkid
WARNING from ModTeam, September 2013: user "Shadowkid" was exposed as a hoaxer. His entire online persona and stories of sexual abuse were fiction. We encourage you not to become emotionally concerned by anything you see in any of his posts. Thank you
MemberMaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/18/05
Posts: 2437

all the things on the good side are reactions of normal people ,the ones on the bad are reactions of survivors ,maybe if we had normal lives then those things would come easy ,but we didnt did we?

_________________________
its not hard to fall when you float like a cannonball - damien rice

My opinion of this list is that it's merely food for thaught, and a flawed one at that because it tends in the direction of "rugged, atomistic individualism" rather than a more deeply interdependent model of "health" and "maturity" which I feel more acurately expresses the human condition. Because of this she puts characteristics in terms of "health" and "unhealth" when in reality even the most "healthy" person is a complex mixture of the attributes in both column one and two, and denying the fact that we're often weak or childlike or followers or looking for others to care for us, etc..., is simply denying aspects of ourselves that we share in common with most people -- whatever their experiences or their status as "healthy" or "unhealthy".

Personally, I think the only really important test for relative health and vitality is the ability to care enough for others that we attempt to do no real harm. All else seems pretty much up for grabs to me. So what if someone is nice and kind and prefers to follow rather than lead? Etc.... This list seems rather arbitrary to me.

I prefer Freud's list: the ability to have moments in which we love, work and play -- however that's done. And notice that all three are interdependent activities, requireing moments of both following and leading, and all the other opposites this list lists. Life's a dance. All we can hope for is moments of harmony. And wisdom seems to me to be merely the ability to appreciate those moments, however rare, in the midst of honoring tragedy.

Adam -- oops, I forgot the most important part: According to my list, you're pretty darn normal. Or if you prefer, you're pretty messed up, as we all are, and yet have the ability to care. That's really all life's about. There's not a human being on earth who reflects only what is in column one -- thank goodness -- cuz THAT really would be fucked up

You have a good heart. It shows in everything you write. That's the only truimph of the human spirit that really matters. Now take that strength and slowly, patiently, with much understanding, let it carry you to new places in terms of work and play. You're so young, you really can do this. Set long goals -- like being a mechanic ten years from now -- or whatever. And smile when you see a child play, that's play enough. You have the most important part of being human and living a life. Don't allow the false enormity of all the rest keep you back from moving forward.

shadowkid
WARNING from ModTeam, September 2013: user "Shadowkid" was exposed as a hoaxer. His entire online persona and stories of sexual abuse were fiction. We encourage you not to become emotionally concerned by anything you see in any of his posts. Thank you
MemberMaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/18/05
Posts: 2437

thank you

_________________________
its not hard to fall when you float like a cannonball - damien rice

"...in reality even the most "healthy" person is a complex mixture of the attributes in both column one and two, and denying the fact that we're often weak or childlike or followers or looking for others to care for us, etc..., is simply denying aspects of ourselves that we share in common with most people -- whatever their experiences or their status as 'healthy' or 'unhealthy.'"

Well stated, Katie. Had the same thoughts myself as I read "Deep Inner Decisions..."

I sometimes think in reading posts on these forums (some of my own included, no doubt) that we can become prone to adopting the the view that certain things like shame, fear of intimacy, self-absorbed behaviours, isolating behaviours, etc, are more-or-less the sole province of Survivors. I don't find this realistic or helpful for any of us. Survivors or not, surely we can all recognize aspects of ourselves expressing from one or the other side of the "Decisions" list at various times?

Also, not in any way to take anything away from the men on this site, nor to in any way invalidate their experiences, but everyone has a story and I think it is through our shared experience of "the human condition" that we are best able to find empathy and understanding.

For some reason a poster one of my daughters used to have comes to mind: "The only 'Normal' people out there are the ones you don't know very well yet." I've always loved that one!

I am a survivor of CSA, as well as of years of daily--and extreme--physical and psychological abuse, etc, but I don't think one need be a survivor of marked abuse or trauma to relate to both sides of the list offered. In my view it is not a question of "good" vs "bad," "normal" (whatever that is, unless it's "dysfunctional";-) vs "abnormal," but degrees of awareness, how we interpret the world and ourselves through our own experiences at various stages in our lives, where we're at in our personal growth/healing, and so forth that might be a more likely determinant of where we most often find ourselves on that list.

I apologize if I'm not articulating my thoughts here well--have been feeling quite inarticulate trying to express myself in words lately--but hopefully I'm making some kind of sense. Sorry if I just seem to be rambling. Katie's point is well taken, at any rate.

Stride

Edited by stride (04/10/0705:03 PM)

_________________________
In the right formation,the lifting power of many wings canachieve twice the distance of any bird flying alone.

Stride, I suspect we choose who we choose for reasons, not least of which choosing those who express for us what we refuse to express about ourselves.

It's striking how many couples share an abuse background. And while men have a tendency to express this differently than women, and vice versa, I suspect men express what women feel yet don't express, and vice versa.... And I think we choose who we do in an attempt to heal our past hurts. If BOTH parties recognize this, then the possibility of actually doing so exists. But recognizing this is pretty scary for lots of different reasons, three of which are: 1) we're pretty conservative creatures by nature and change is threatening and 2) it means recognizing things in ourselves that we're more comfortable projecting onto others, and 3) it requires that we recognize that we are indeed interdependent beings, reliant on others for developing creative, vital lives.

It's little wonder that abused women -- myself included -- are drawn to men who are sexually/physically withdrawn. First, it's safe. Also, it allows us room to play at being the more sexually expressive one -- but to be so in reality requires a partner who responds in like kind, not someone who withdraws. That we've chosen someone who withdraws sort of hints at our own inability for physical closeness, no matter our riteous protestations to the contrary.

Before finding this site, I was active on support groups for mixed orientation couples -- straight women and bi/gay men. While many men here identify as straight, many have bisexual behavior. The couples on the bisexual support groups are pretty interesting, and I've learned a lot about myself in reading other women's stories. Most of the women who stay with a "bisexual" man (and many of the men are sexual abuse victims) were themselves abused and seem to have unacknowledged fears of penetration. It's easy to not get in touch with these fears because by being involved with a man who has fears of penetrating puts the women more in control of being penetrated in that they tend to be in the position of having to ask, bribe or beg for sex

I wasn't sexually abused, but I was physically abused and really didn't like being touched, especially by my father. So historically, I've chosen physically unexpressive men, though I longed for affection. Now I've chosen a man with a history of prefering, or tolerating, sex with men rather than women. He was sexually abused by his mother....

The other thing I've thought about is that to the extent to which Rob's behavior with men (and so too his relationships with women) is more of a perversion (in the sense of being not natural to his innate sexuality and basic goodness, but a perversion of it committed by his mother) than a positive, authentic expression of his deeper longings, what this means about me. What I've come up with is that we're all tempted by the perverse solution, so he expresses for me my own temptations. I express for him the neurotic solution -- the hysterical or borderline solution.... Or put another way, these couples tend to form a Narcissistic/Borderline couple -- in broad, de>

I
agree that my access and use of the MaleSurvivor discussion forums and
chat room is subject to the terms of this Agreement. AND the sole
discretion of MaleSurvivor. I agree that my use of MaleSurvivor
resources are AT-WILL,
and that my posting privileges may be terminated at any time, and for
any reason by MaleSurvivor.